Posted
by
kdawson
on Friday July 31, 2009 @08:47AM
from the one-more-chance dept.

Barence writes "Gary McKinnon has lost the judicial review of his case, dealing a potentially fatal blow to his hopes of avoiding extradition to the US. Lord Justice Stanley Burnton and Mr. Justice Wilkie dismissed the review at the Royal Courts of Justice. The review had been assembled to determine whether the diagnosis of McKinnon's Asperger's Syndrome had any bearing on the Home Office's original decision to extradite him to the US. Asperger's sufferers often exhibit obsessive behavior and social naivety, which McKinnon's lawyers have long offered as mitigation. His legal team now has 28 days to appeal the verdict, and his lawyer, Karen Todners, has indicated they may consider taking his case before the US Supreme Court. Last year we discussed a full profile of the hacker published by the BBC." Sophos's survey of 550 IT professionals found that 71% believe McKinnon should not be extradited.

Actually, as an American, I just assumed that, since they hadn't been able to get the British legal system to refuse extradition, they were planning to attack the problem from the other end and try to get the American legal system to rescind the extradition request. Of course, I was a little confused about how they planned on getting the US court system to just skip over all the levels of appeals courts and go straight to the Supreme Court.

The only courts that handle international cases are the Federal courts. The lower-level state courts are forbidden by the Constitution to try such cases. So assuming his lawyers already tried to reason with the U.S. court in Virginia, and the judge did not listen, then the next step would be the Supreme Court.

By the way, I do think this guy deserves to be tried. Even if he is a little nutty, he still broke the law, and should receive a light sentence of 2 or 3 years in jail, or equivalent psychiatric tre

What is really pissing the British off is that the American government is trying to extradite McKinnon using a law that was passed under the shadow of 9/11 for the purposes of anti-terrorism.

Granted, McKinnon was foolish to enter the US government computers, although perhaps he should be given a consultant's fee for highlighting such lax security. If they're going to prosecute him for being an idiot, then certainly they could look closer to home.

And the tactics employed by the American Justice Department have been more than questionable under various EU laws, let alone the English legal system.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment is to see the politicians rolling over for the American government instead of standing up for their own citizens.

Did McKinnon break into the systems? Yes, and he has admitted such. Surely as a British citizen having commited a crime in England he should be tried under English law.

I strongly disagree. If McKinnon admittedly broke into U.S. government systems, on U.S. soil, then the entire act occurred in the United States, making McKinnon subject to U.S. law and court jurisdiction. If the reverse had been true and McKinnon were in the United States breaking into MI5 computers, you better believe that the Crown would be looking to extradite him to the U.K..

If one party is in the United States, and the other party is in the United Kingdom, how can you say that "the entire act occurred in the United States"? It'd make as much sense to say that the entire act occurred in the United Kingdom.

Tell you what, let's split the difference and say that the act occurred midway between the two countries, right in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. The "entire act" occurred in international waters, so neither country has any jurisdiction to prosecute him!

Uh, who gives a damn? He was hacking into U.S. computers. He should be punished under U.S. law. Is anyone in the U.K. a direct victim of his crime? No. Is the U.S. government? Yes. Thus he answers to the U.S. legal system. End of story.

Frankly, yours and your countrymen's attitude toward other sovereign nations -- namely that the US is allowed to stomp around the world, murdering and pillaging with no reperecussions -- but if some idiot guesses that your Windows systems have default Administrator accounts with no passwords, then they should be made an example of, possibly facing death by e [telegraph.co.uk]

Nope. The US government is free to sue him in the UK. They have a legal system there too. Criticizing the Chinese government might be illegal in China, but you would not want the US extraditing you to China to face prosecution fro that now, would you? Why should this guy be treated differently.

Did McKinnon break into the systems? Yes, and he has admitted such. Surely as a British citizen having commited a crime in England he should be tried under English law.

Bad idea. This would set a precedent that all cyber crimes are to be tried under local law, thus hackers originating from countries that don't give a damn about computer crimes against the united states would have a blank legal check to keep on attacking the military networks.

It should be both, shouldn't it? You're hacking from your own jurisdiction, as well as trespassing on property in another jurisdiction.

But, if a country doesn't care about prosecuting hackers targeting American systems, we probably don't have an extradition treaty with them either. In that case it becomes something for our diplomats to duke out.

And you know that this "fry" was spoken of literally as opposed to being a metaphor... how?

1) As problematic as the American justice system can sometimes be, we (thankfully) don't have a habit of frying people on giant skillets. So we can rule out death by frying pan.2) Despite the electric chair technically being an option in a few states, is almost never used. The prisoner would almost have to request it. Lethal injection is the preference.3) A common meaning of "fry" could be that he plans to give an

The American prison system (judging by how it's described by American sources themselves - often with glee) is something to which no civilized nation should allow its citizens to be subjected. Sometimes people seem not to realize how twisted it is that prison rape be considered a normal part of going to jail, instead of the vile barbarity that it is.

The British Government is dead set on getting him extradited. They are obsessed with being seen as being tough on "cybercrime" in case the US removes our already piddling access to their secret data. The US only wants McKinnon because they are more likely to get a conviction with a long sentence as he is not a US citizen.

Really, it's the admins of those insecure computers who should be prosecuted. I thought it was a federal offense negligently to give access to secret data?

The British Government is dead set on getting him extradited. They are obsessed with being seen as being tough on "cybercrime" in case the US removes our already piddling access to their secret data.

I always thought the British were our ally. Last time I checked, the British Army had 30,000 soldiers crossing the border into Iraq in March 2003 and they stayed for a pretty darned good time after the rest of Europe bailed.

Seems to me that information sharing between the two countries should be more, not less.

I'm so sick of the aspie defense. Seems like every time a computer user is on trial (remember Reiser?), it gets rolled out. "My client is guilty as hell, but he's got Asperger's!" First, your mental handicap has to be to the point where you quite literally don't know what you're doing - so just give it up, having light Asperger's doesn't cut it. Second, it impacts the way people view us computer professionals - for example, when we try to argue for less copyright and more information freedom. The aspie defense does us about as much good as the "Your honor, this man did indeed kill his daughter, but he's Muslim, he can't help himself" defense does for the vast majority of Muslims.

Aye the Asperger defence is pretty lame but honestly he should not even have to use it, the extradition laws they are using to extradite him should not have been used it this case as not only were they intended only for suspected terrorists but to boot they are completely one sided, requireing no evidence of a crime to presented by the US for someone to be extradited from the UK while the same not being true in reverse

Though wonder why they have not pursued this to the European court level as the extraditi

they are completely one sided, requireing no evidence of a crime to presented by the US for someone to be extradited from the UK

You know, I had to read the act twice to confirm that it really was so. That is just completely wrong. I really hope they take this to the Supreme Court - if nothing else, the publicity will perhaps help to overturn the law.

So, if (with evidence) we demanded that some mediocre nonentitiy US citizen be extradited for placing our citizens in danger, the US courts will approve it and systematically reject all appeals saying tha tthe treaty overrides your constitution?
Way to go! finally you guys are seeing sense.

I'm so sick of the aspie defense. Seems like every time a computer user is on trial (remember Reiser?), it gets rolled out. "My client is guilty as hell, but he's got Asperger's!"

If this defense was accepted in court, the unforeseen consequence would be that eventually companies and governments would protect themselves from preventing those with Asperger's Syndrome (or borderline equivalent behavior). Imagine mandatory mental screening on a yearly basis to prevent anyone with "the wrong kind of thinking" from being able to have internet access because one guy set a landmark case and got away with being just nuts enough to escape prison.

Okay, I agree Asperger's should be a valid legal defense for crimes. But at the same time, is justice really being dealt to Aspies? How many of them are convicted merely because juries think they "act weird", don't make eye contact, etc., and make an unjusitied inference that the defendant is guilty?

But what if it were Linux? If they were stupid enough to make the root password 'password', it's not Linux's fault, and it's not Microsoft's fault for the gov. being dumb enough to leave their computers open.

""Despite his growing affinity for the machine, he left school at 17 to become a hairdresser, a career cut short by a friend's insistence that there was better money, and he was better suited, to a career in IT."" http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/252972/gary-mckinnon-britains-hacking-hero.html [pcpro.co.uk]
I find it highly unlikely that an Aspie would ever become a hair dresser, an incredibly social job. Anybody who has every had any kind of contact with a true Aspie knows they avoid social situations like the plague. I call shenanigans.

Not true. Many aspies will go through all sorts of contortions to fit in. I played football in high school and had a C- average until my senior year, when I decided to start studying again, and got a 4.7 my final year (4.5 scale, honors courses went to 5.5, so it pulled me above 4.5). I hated football, but I hated myself even more, and wanted desperately to fit in. Having horrible motor coordination meant I was stuck playing line, and socially I was as clumsy as I was physically. It was a massive failure in terms of fitting in, but I had Aspergers, and didn't really understand that there was more to fitting in than adopting a stereotype. Looking back on it, I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a large number of bodybuilders (or athletes) who have some form of aspergers. It's the socially clumsy,"if I just get bigger biceps then everyone will love me" types that I'm thinking about.

Some Aspies avoid social situations, others will make clumsy, awkward attempts to fit in. They'll rehearse everything they say, over-prepare for every social event, and still find ways to fuck it up. They'll go to great lengths to fit in whatever way they can.

Oh come on, stop making medical excuses for this guy. Most people with AS know that you cannot do something like this without breaking the law and getting punished.

McKinnon is just another geek who thought that a lack of security implied that he could just walk right in through the door without punishment. Chances are, he's also one of those geeks who would hypocritically go postal if he left his door unlocked and a bunch of people walked in and refused to leave.

"Sophos's survey of 550 IT professionals found that 71% believe McKinnon should not be extradited"

What exactly was asked in this 'survey', how were the questions phrased, what questions were asked before the one on McKinnon, why would it matter that they were 'IT professionals' considering that the hack McKinnon did consisted of logging into passwordless Windows NT computers and typing rude msgs (in wordpad) to the administrator

"Gary McKinnon has lost the judicial review of his case, dealing a potentially fatal blow to his hopes of avoiding extradition to the US"
It's ironic that if the situation were reversed and under the 'evidence; presented in this case, the UK government would have no way of getting McKinnon extradited here. I guess we're not a real country ane'ways..:)

if you kill 20 people and plead insanity, you still get a form of punishment: the insane asylum. regardless of WHY someone commits the crime, is the more important priority of society protecting itself from people who engage in criminal behavior. whether because of moral failure, psychological defect, or some other variation on the tired "the devil made me do it" defense

you've been revealed as someone dangerous to society. therefore, some sort of restrictions

He didn't "hack in". They had default "Administrator" accounts with no password. The hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage he's supposed to have caused was the cost of checking to see if he'd damaged anything (he hadn't) and fixing the security holes (which weren't his problem). They only noticed the intrusion because he left messages telling them!

What he did was the moral equivalent of walking through an unlocked, unguarded door and having a look round. For this he's facing 60 years in jail. This is not justice.

And if you came home and found such a note on your table, what would your reaction be?

Would it be "My my, I should really double check to make sure the door was locked. Thanks, Anonymous Note Writer!"

Probably not. Most likely, it would be something like "Holy crap, who does that guy think he is coming into my house and poking around without permission?" followed by vague feelings of unease and paranoia.

Yes, the systems should have been secured better. But that still doesn't give someone permission to go poking around in them, any more than someone has permission to go poking around in your house if the door is unlocked.

I'm sure the U.S. Supreme Court would strike that down as cruel-and-unusual punishment (a violation of the Constitution). That's why we have that document - to bring sanity when the president, congress, and military are sick with power.

Kevin Mitnik spent how many years behind bars before the case even went to court? The fatalities in custody in the US is how much in excess of the norm of the rest of the Western powers?

Besides, the Supreme Court actually has no power whatsoever to actually enforce any of its decisions, which is why when it is convenient to do so, the US Government ignores it. Sanity in the US is optional, and sadly nowhere near as common as it should be.

Actually, I'd make quick cursory check of my valuable property to make sure nothing was taken, then change the locks on my door for something I can't forget to lock (spring-bolt lock instead of deadbolt, for instance). That way the default is set to "locked" instead of "unlocked."

If the guy left a card to contact him, I'd probably send him some cash to buy a couple of beers with. After all, he could have stolen all my stuff, not left a note, and left no sign of forced entry (preventing me from claiming on my insurance).

Sometimes being a good citizen is the worst thing to do. There's a reason why you don't hear of many "good samaritans" any more.

Maybe I'm insane, but if I left my house unlocked, and nothing was stolen, nothing damaged and nothing was planted except that sort of note (no threats etc), I wouldn't bother with the police.I'd rather take my chances with someone who left a note and didn't steal stuff than deal with the police.

After all, when my cousin's house was burgled, his wife's PDA was still around before the cops came. But after the cops left, the PDA was gone.

And when some guy's sports shop was burgled, the cops came and took some

I feel some serious sympathy for this guy, since I've done similar things (although only to personal computers, not government systems).

In college, there were a lot of people with cifs shares with public read/write turned on. It was my habit to stick a text file on the root of their c:\ and put a shortcut into their startup folders to run "notepad c:\note.txt". The note always told them about the problem, and to find a friendly geek to help them out.

It's still hacking. Incredibly easy hacking, but any attempt to gain access to a system where you're not authorized is hacking. You can try to delude yourself that it isn't, but a reasonable person will conclude that it is hacking. It's like that bit from Jumanji: "You tried to cheat?" "No, I tried to drop the dice so they'd land on twelve." Oh, okay, honey. Well, that would be cheating."

As for the "having a look round" bit: I don't know what the law is like where you live, but if someone does that here, they're gonna end up in the local jail waiting to go before a judge to explain just why they're wandering around. (And I don't suspect the judge will be happy with "Oh, I was just looking around.")

18.2-92. Breaking and entering dwelling house with intent to commit other misdemeanor.
If any person break and enter a dwelling house while said dwelling is occupied, either in the day or nighttime, with the intent to commit any misdemeanor except assault and battery or trespass, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. However, if the person was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of such entry, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 felony.
(Code 1950, 18.1-88.1; 1968, c. 530; 1970, c. 381; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1992, c. 486.)

As for the "having a look round" bit: I don't know what the law is like where you live, but if someone does that here, they're gonna end up in the local jail waiting to go before a judge to explain just why they're wandering around. (And I don't suspect the judge will be happy with "Oh, I was just looking around.")

18.2-92. Breaking and entering dwelling house with intent to commit other misdemeanor.
If any person break and enter a dwelling house while said dwelling is occupied, either in the day or nighttime, with the intent to commit any misdemeanor except assault and battery or trespass, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. However, if the person was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of such entry, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 felony.
(Code 1950, 18.1-88.1; 1968, c. 530; 1970, c. 381; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1992, c. 486.)

From the text you quoted, the house has to be occupied AND you have to prove the perpetrator was intent on committing other crimes. Innocent until proven guilty?

Let's take a real life example. In the US, there are a number of apartment buildings that are built with identical precision (each more identical than the last.) If you were walking home at night and happened to turn off at the wrong building, went up to where "your apartment" would have been, and found the door unlocked, you would probably si

So when you mistype an IP address and SSH to the wrong machine you should be locked up for 10 years? You have attempted to gain access to a system where you are not authorized. Don't pull that crap that it was an accident. Don't to the crime if you can't do the time.

any attempt to gain access to a system where you're not authorized is hacking. You can try to delude yourself that it isn't, but a reasonable person will conclude that it is hacking.

Who are these "reasonable persons" and why are they so stupid?

18.2-92. Breaking and entering dwelling house with intent to commit other misdemeanor.

If any person break and enter a dwelling house while said dwelling is occupied, either in the day or nighttime, with the intent to commit any misdemeanor except assault and battery or trespass, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. However, if the person was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of such entry, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 felony.

It's a term of art in the legal world. Wikipedia is your friend: Reasonable Person [wikipedia.org]

...strong evidence of a lack of intent to commit a misdemeanor.

Which is why it goes to trial. There is an independent review in the form of the judge (or jury, depending on the severity of the charge) which should take into accounts such evidence; if is is as strong as you say, then he shouldn't have to worry. (Imperfections of the judicial system are outside of my

Almost... Burglary does require mens rea but you do not have to break - you merely have to enter. Trespassing into a staff only section of a shop merely by walking behind the till and removing goods is sufficient to prove burglary - there doesn't have to be any force, merely sufficent entry.
In the case of someone walking in and leaving a note on the table there would be no mens rea proving intent to burgle so you wouldnt get a s9 conviction.

That's kind of the issue. They had no way to know if he'd damaged anything, and so they had to check everything out, which costs time and money. They screwed up, but he knew he shouldn't be in their systems. I don't think he should be sent to the US, but he's not innocent.

What he did was the moral equivalent of walking through an unlocked, unguarded door marked "stay the fuck out", where sensitive equipment is kept that must not be tampered with, and having a look around. He's facing jail time because e

Let's be clear. He should not have been on those systems. He *knew* he was not allowed in those systems. The fact that there was security, good, bad or non-existent is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if he was "exposing" their lack of security. It doesn't matter if he supposedly did no damage.

Nothing compelled him to attack and intrude on another party's system. Nothing compelled him to do that intrusion on a system that he knew would cause the black helicopters to appear. Being stupid is not a defense in a court of law. Although he has demonstrated a certain lack of mental capacity by even trying this stunt, he's still not dumb enough to be considered retarded, although *that* should have been his diminished capacity defense.

The DoD does not have the luxury of taking this guy at his word, they *must* investigate. That costs time and money. Additionally, intruding on a military system carries the higher than average possibility that compromise could cause casualties. That means that you come down like a ton of bricks on people who do it, without regard for what they actually attacked. You want people to know that simply putting their pinky toe over the line into that network is Serious Business, despite what they decided to go after.

Don't get me wrong. People need to be fired at DoD and security needs to be improved, but that doesn't make what he did right or legal or less deserving of extradition and jail time. You don't go logging into military systems on a lark. If he was allowed to get off the hook for that, just think of the numbers of emboldened attackers who would see one less reason why they shouldn't attack a portion of the Internet that is already a huge target.

To reiterate, it doesn't matter if the morons at DoD left their door ajar, and it doesn't matter if our friendly neighborhood hacker just started writing notes all over the place about how bad their security was. You may not like having to send him to another country for trial, but he earned it. The only thing that the situation seems to lack is the sanctions and/or jail time for the people who were that bad at security. They should rot in jail alongside with McKinnon.

But what is unauthorized access? At my company, there are legal notices right before hitting the login page telling you that if you are not authorized to access this computer, you should disconnect at that point. If you don't have that, whats to tell if you fat fingered the ip you were connecting to and happened into a radically different box than you intended? Incredibly unlikely, but I bet stranger things have happened. Additionally, if thats not a good enough argument, I could always point out that a

I wouldn't agree that it's a crime, though. He didn't damage anything; he just looked around. In fact, I'd look at it from the other side: if a few harmless things don't happen to scare people into making security a serious concern, then the government won't learn its lesson. "Make an example" of a few wide-open machines, and don't prosecute a tiny crime more harshly than you would a murder.

I can understand that the activity all happened within the US but i'm not quite so sure why there is the instance on extriditing him apart from presumably that a guy on his mom's computer managed to hack into supposedly the most secure computers at the time leaving them with egg on their face and a great deal of embarrasment.

First - let's not give this guy too much credit. I highly doubt he managed to access anything close to "the most secure computers at the time." What systems were involved seems to be subject to a lot of hyperbole. McKinnon's own claims differ depending on whether he's talking up his UFO hunt or fighting extradition. The US Government's case is about showing a reason to support extradition - you can expect any errors in estimation to fall against McKinnon. From what I know of the systems McKinnon vaguel

Maybe people will finally realise Aspergers isn't a real condition and an excuse for the the socially inept to not make the effort.

Some psychological, personality, and/or developmental disorders aren't fictitious. Maybe people will finally realize that and stop being facetious know-it-all assholes. Then again, maybe people like ringbarer are obvious trolls and my social ineptness and my lack of effort is the excuse for this misunderstanding.

Asperger's Syndrome has already been established as being a defect in the mirror neurons in the brain, and it is unquestionably a form of autism (which is caused by those parts of the brain designed to filter information being malformed).

If a malformed brain is an "excuse", I'd LOVE to see ringbarer's sick notes. What the hell is real, if great big chunks of the brain being missing is fake?

You are woefully uninformed and have probably only run into those idiots that self-diagnose as having Aspergers for the reason you state. If you've ever met anyone that was professionally diagnosed with Aspergers you'd know that almost all of them do what they can to fight the disorder and act normally. I, personally, know several and unless they told you it'd be hard to tell them apart from your average geek.

In other words... I'd suggest you STFU and actually do some research before cocking off about something you obviously have no real knowledge about.

Asperger's is a very real condition, however by definition it is no defense for criminal behavior. The similar condition that is severe enough to merit a diminished capacity defense is called Autism. The threshold of diminished capacity was long established in autism diagnosis before Asperger's was identified. Autism is a disease, Asperger's is a disorder.

And although we can agree on the invalidity of the legal argument, I must point out that derogatory comments about the mentally disabled is extremely l

First off, Asperger's Syndrome is generally recognized as being on the Autistic Spectrum, not as an independently-classified condition. Second, MRI shows the two to be tightly-coupled, that there can be no serious question that Asperger's Syndrome is merely a specific subset of Autism.

Now we've got that out the way, I strongly object to the whole mental concept of absolute diminished responsibility. It's a sliding scale, not an on/off switch, and ALL people will have some area in which some diminished respo

I know you were trolling, but I need to respond. I have AS. My father has it. My grandfather had it. And my son and one of my daughters have it. Believe me, it's real. I'm nearly 40. I'm just now feeling like I'm getting a handle on social skills. I believe I'm now entering the realm of the merely poor people-skilled humans. But it's much more than a lack of people skills. I have problems experiencing any emotion except anger. Sometimes I know what I'm feeling. Sometimes I feel something specific (like jealousy or embarrassment for example) but interpret it as a generic "bad". Sometimes I can't identify it at all. And sometimes I feel nothing when something should be there. Even when I know exactly what I'm feeling, 80% of the time, I express it incorrectly. Normal people can't read me either. They think I'm angry when I'm not, or feel completely blind-sided when I am angry. Behaviors that are natural and automatic for neurotypicals are learned behaviors for me. And if I haven't learned them, I execute them wrong or not at all. I have problems with executive function meaning that it's difficult or impossible to plan and organize some things. It explains why I always scored sky-high on aptitude tests in school, but always got bad grades. My spacial relations, problem solving, design abilities, and speech/linguistics are way out there. I always impress people with it. But my memory is beyond terrible. I can remember hardware addresses of computers I used 20 years ago, but can't remember what I had for breakfast a couple days ago. I also have sensory problems, mainly with touch and hearing. I have problem filtering out background noises and focusing on specific people talking. I have no idea what they're saying. Yet my hearing tests out perfect. When it happens, it's like my wife has switched to a foreign language. My gait is visibly wrong, which is common. I also have the theory of mind problems (mind-blindness). It's sometimes nearly impossible for me to understand at all how someone else feels unless something nearly identical has happened to me. As a coping mechanism, I have a long mental list of things that I know make people feel bad. When someone expresses sadness to me because of one of these things, I fake the empathy back to them. It works most of the time. And I intend the same things for them as someone who actually feels bad for them. I really want them to feel better. But inside me, I feel mostly nothingness.

Asperger's Syndrome and other autism spectrum disorders are real. I've benefited partially from it. But for the most part it sucks. I would give anything to be normal.

Don't be normal. If you think being aspie is bad, neurotypicals are infinitely worse off. They even believe their own crud, half the time, believe it or not.

For those curious about whether they have Asperger's Syndrome, there are three simple ways to self-diagnose:

This is a superb online test [rdos.net]. If you score 150 or more for being Aspie and less than 100 on being neurotypical, you're aspie.On the other hand, Slashdot is going to primarily be of interest to aspies, so constitutes a test in its own right:

Yup, and you can do a scan to determine if I am awake or asleep, or whether I am thinking or not. This does not, however, indicate it is some type of genetic disorder or environmental variable causing this.

The one fact that keeps rearing its head is that even after you take out other socioeconomic variables, ADD and ADHD is much more prevalent in fatherless households. There is a very high correlation. And yes, I know correlation!=causation. However, you have to make some pretty big leaps of faith to get around it. Dads have a much different parenting style and discipline style than moms. It stands to reason that this would have an impact on the outcome of the children.

And now, in the modern America, where husbands aren't really viewed as necessary (or even desired), we wonder why we have an explosion of these "disorders". Sorry... it ain't rocket science.

And now, in the modern America, where husbands aren't really viewed as necessary (or even desired), we wonder why we have an explosion of these "disorders". Sorry... it ain't rocket science.

What America do you live in? In the one I live in, "family values" like marriage, having children, etc are cherished. There's even public service announcements like "it takes a man to be a dad." No one, besides maybe the most radical feminists would say that fathers are "undesired." And there really aren't many singl

Family values are talked about. We have advertising campaigns. But it is projected that in a few years that more kids will be born out of wedlock than in (it is slightly over 40% now). This is trend is being seen in all social levels. So, Family Values are a nice political campaign slogan, but we have rejected them as a society.

If you want the #1 factor in a child's success, look to two-parent households with parents who are actively involved with their children. Forget ethnicity, forget money. They may be big factors, but parents' involvement is #1.

Yup, and you can do a scan to determine if I am awake or asleep, or whether I am thinking or not. This does not, however, indicate it is some type of genetic disorder or environmental variable causing this.

How is this +4? The qEEG can be used as a tool to diagnose ADD. How is that a negative thing?

If we can cut down on over-prescription of ADD medication isn't this a good thing, regardless of not being able to figure out if it is a genetic disorder or environmentally caused?

As far as I can tell this guy isn't a kid. He's a 40 year old pretending to be mentally ill using the same defense that furries use to justify why they spend their days sexually suggestive anthropomorphic foxes with five nipples and then complain they can't get women.

It's surprising this guy didn't wake up in Guantanamo Bay one morning, considering there is a lot more evidence against him than some of the inmates there.

Not at all, given that the whole point of Guantanamo Bay is to hold people against whom there is no evidence. He's actually guilty of something, so he can be sentenced in a court. Now, if he was innocent, but someone disliked him and wanted to get rid of him, then he would be sent to GB.

Not that that GB would be that different than the one he's currently in, mind you...